Win, But Don't Win Too Big! Smile, But Don't Smile Too Much!

It's time for another of my occasional rants about things that are too complex for 280 characters, and quite frankly, too complex for the majority of the users I encounter on social media. This time, it's soccer!!! Well, coverage of the USWNT and their decimation of Thailand in the group stage of the 2019 Women's World Cup.

If you didn't watch the match, the US won 13-0. Alex Morgan scored FIVE GOALS all on her own. Megan Rapinoe, Carli Loyd, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Sam Mewis, and Mallory Pugh all got in on the scoring action as well. Each time they scored, the celebrated exuberantly. They never let up.

As I am in the US, I was watching the match on FOX. The coverage was hosted by Rob Stone, Kelly Smith (former England player), Heather O'Reilly (herself a USWNT player), Ariane Hingst (former Germany player), and Alexi Lalas (former USMNT player). Immediately following the match, Rob Stone expressed disgust with the USWNT continuing to score on a hapless Thai team, going so far as to state that they should have "pulled back" and not run up the score. O'Reilly and Smith tried to argue with him, but neither was allowed to fully express her position before the coverage ended.

As is to be expected, social media erupted. The scoreline was one point of contention for many people. Another was the fact that the US players continued to celebrate their goals even as the total ticked higher and higher. Canadian broadcasters referred to the USWNT as disgraceful. Many, including former players Taylor Twellman and Julie Foudy and NBCSN Premier League commentator Arlo White, argued that the players should have "dialed back" their celebrations.

To sum up, an outrageously talented USWNT won their first match of the 2019 World Cup, but they didn't win it exactly the way some people wanted them to because they scored too many goals and celebrated too much.

Is anyone else starting to detect some sexism in what they're hearing?

I have problems with this coverage, needless to say. First of all, the idea that they should have held back on the number of goals they scored is absurd. Goal differential is the tie breaker in the group stage of the World Cup. In the event of a tie in the standings, the team that scored more goals will move on. Racking up as many goals as possible is a means of supporting your ability to move out of the group stage. It's also ridiculous to argue that 5 or 6 goals would have been enough to pad the goal differential. In the same group as the USWNT is Sweden, the 2016 Olympic Silver Medal team. They play Thailand next. Sweden is capable of scoring at will on Thailand as well. The point of working so hard to get to the World Cup is to try to win it, so scoring as many goals as one possibly can is not, as Joe Prince-Wright of NBC Sports argued, a lack of compassion.

Compassion. When I saw that word in Prince-Wright's article this morning, I almost had a rage aneurysm. Why is it that people expect women to show compassion in a sports competition when they would in no way require the same of a men's team? When Germany beat Brazil 7-1 in the Semifinals of the 2014 men's World Cup, was there an uproar about Germany needing to show compassion? I'm going to go with no.

So, we expect women to be the best at what they do, but at the same time, not display exactly how good they are because that's not nice or compassionate.

And heaven forbid that they act like they're having fun or experiencing joy while they're being the best at what they do.

Even more enraging than the whole number of goals scored argument is the idea that the USWNT should have dialed back their celebrations. To me, this is a classic example of people (and especially men) policing women's emotions and how they express them.

Imagine that since you were a child (in some cases as young as three years old), you've worked your heart out with the goal of someday maybe getting to play in a World Cup. You sacrificed time with your friends and family to practice and play in tournaments. You worked hard to get a scholarship to play in college, which requires you to make more sacrifices to balance school and athletic obligations. Your professional soccer opportunities are limited to a rather poorly-run league in the US that plays its matches on substandard pitches and pays its players pitifully or moving to Europe to play in a league that is only marginally better off than your domestic league. You make the National Team, but US Soccer pays you substantially less than the men's team, despite the fact that you win more, draw bigger crowds, and are regularly one of the top-ranked teams in the world (the men are decidedly NOT top-ranked). The World Cup is your biggest stage and the very top of the accomplishments that you could achieve in your soccer career.

Now imagine getting there and actually scoring a goal.

If you're being honest with yourself, how would you react? Would you be calm? Would your focus be on the other team and how they might be feeling at that moment?

Lavelle, Mewis, Horan, and Pugh scored goals in their very first World Cup matches yesterday. Are they supposed to not celebrate something they've dreamed of for their entire lives?

Alex Morgan scored FIVE GOALS. Five. Goals. In a World Cup match. No matter who your opponent is, that is incredible. How many opportunities does a person get to score five goals on the biggest stage in their game? Should she not be proud of herself?

Megan Rapinoe is playing in her third World Cup after coming back from a torn ACL. She's 33 years old, very possibly playing in her last World Cup. Should she not express joy at scoring in a World Cup? (Also, don't think for a second that the extra backlash Rapinoe is getting has nothing to do with her advocacy work on equal pay, LGBTQ rights, and her support of Colin Kaepernick.)

Carli Lloyd is about to turn 37 years old, playing in her fourth World Cup. As an about-to-be-39-year-old myself, she has earned every scream, leap, and hug she gave in that moment.

This criticism of how and how much these women expressed joy, excitement, and the pay off of hard work reeks of sexism. All women are familiar with this because it happens even to those of us who are not public figures competing on a world stage. If you've ever been told to smile by a stranger because your neutral face isn't happy enough, you've been there. If you've ever been told that telling people about your accomplishments means you're bragging or being unladylike, you've been there. If you've ever been called a bitch for how you express yourself, you've been there.

Compare the backlash against the USWNT to a recent example of a male athlete expressing emotion in a high stakes moment. A couple weeks ago, Tottenham Hotspur lost to Liverpool (ugh) in the Champions League final. As is standard, Spurs were given runners-up medals after the match before the trophy presentation. Spurs (and England) captain Harry Kane, with a mixture of anger, disappointment, and sadness on his face, took his medal off of his neck the second he walked away from the UEFA official who put it on him. This is not unusual behavior. It happens enough that I frequently wonder why they even bother with runners-up medals. That being said, it doesn't seem like particularly "sportsmanlike" (ugh) behavior. Second place in the Champions League isn't anything to sniff at -- you have to beat some of the best clubs in the world to even make it to the final -- but Harry Kane was CLEARLY unhappy with the outcome. His emotions were out there for all to see. I haven't seen a single criticism of Kane's emotional display and I pay a lot (probably too much) attention to football media in the UK and the US. Why is it ok for Harry Kane to express emotion on the pitch (and act like his medal was an insult), but it's not acceptable for Alex Morgan to celebrate scoring five goals in a World Cup match? Sexism is why.

I'm tired of having to point this stuff out and also of having to deal with the fallout of calling it out (see my Twitter for what happens when a woman dares to express an opinion that makes some men slightly uncomfortable). But I'm going to keep doing it until I don't see it anymore. In the meantime, I have a challenge for anyone who is reading this. When you're watching the World Cup and you see an athlete do something that you want to criticize, ask yourself first, "Would I be criticizing this behavior if the person doing it was a man instead of a woman?" If the answer is no, shut up. If the answer is yes, make sure you're being honest with yourself.

Ohio's School Report Cards: A Rant From a Parent/Educator

This week, the state of Ohio released their annual school report cards for K-12 public school districts. As always, this release was met with much consternation and hand-wringing from local media and people who have no idea what they're talking about. The state had warned that the grades would be lower for most districts based on changes to the tests and assessments involved. Superintendents, administrators, and teachers scrambled to defend their districts and their work. 

As a parent who also happens to be an educator, intimately familiar with the ins and outs of assessment, I want to take this opportunity to declare these report cards complete and utter bullshit (sorry for the language, but it's accurate).

There are two points I want to make here. The first is the assessment point. The second is about the politics of the system that leads to these report cards.

I am the director of a large, multi-section public speaking course that counts for general education credit at the university where I work. I am, therefore, responsible for conducting assessment on the course I direct. The most important thing that I've learned about assessment is that the data needs to meet the needs of the program being assessed. You need to be able to look at that data and take action based on what you see. 

First, a digression. An example may help those who don't do assessment. You can skip this section if you don't care about my thoughts and experiences with course assessment. When I took over the course I direct, I considered the most recent assessment that had been done on that course. It's pretty standard that basic communication courses do a pretest and posttest using Personal Record of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24) instrument as an assessment. The PRCA-24 asks respondents to react to 24 statements about how they experience apprehension or anxiety in various communication contexts (public speaking, small group, interpersonal, and meetings). The goal of using this instrument for course assessment is to see if students' communication apprehension (CA) is reduced over the course of taking a basic communication course. This is the assessment that had been previously done on the course I was directing. Obviously, it's a good thing if students come away from a basic communication course more confident with their communication skills. However, there are too many variables at play to actually make the data you get from this type of assessment actionable or even useful. First of all, communication apprehension can be what we in the field refer to as "trait" CA -- the result of how a person's brain is wired to work. Some people are more anxious overall than others. It's highly unlikely that one 16-week university course is going to reduce anxiety for someone experiencing trait CA. Second, this type of assessment has the underlying assumption that CA is "bad" and needs to be reduced. Clearly, CA that prevents someone from communicating to their best ability is something that needs to be worked on; however, CA isn't necessarily "bad." I've been studying communication since 1998, teaching public speaking at the university level since 2003, and doing presentations in courses and at conferences since I was an undergrad. You'd think I would score very low on CA. That's not the case. CA is a natural response to a situation that can be stressful -- who wouldn't be even a little anxious looking out over a crowd of people while giving a speech or talking to a person they've never met before? With all of my experience and expertise in communicating, I still experience CA. I've just developed strategies and techniques for managing that experience and even harnessing my nervous energy to make my speeches and conversations more dynamic.

All of that is to say that the assessment data I would get from the standard basic communication course assessment would not meet my needs as a course director. What I really wanted to know is if my students finish the semester with a clear understanding of the theories and skills we teach, the ability to think critically about argument and evidence, and a baseline set of public speaking skills that they can apply to presentations after they leave my course. So, I developed an assessment that looks at those learning outcomes (to make a long story short, my instructors apply a rubric to the "capstone" assignment of the semester, the persuasive speech, to determine if students are not meeting, meeting, or exceeding our expectations on the learning outcomes we've set for the course). These elements give me information based on which I can actually take action to improve the course and my students' learning and skill development.

Assessment is only valuable if it gives the program being assessed data it can act upon. Absent this, it cannot and should not be used to make critical decisions about funding and quality.

Ask any K-12 teacher in Ohio and I would be willing to bet money that they'll tell you that they aren't getting data that works for what they want to accomplish in their classrooms. How can one nebulous set of standards and assessments work for a classroom in an inner-city district in Columbus, a wealthy, well-funded suburb outside of Cincinnati, and a small town/rural district like Bowling Green? I don't believe they can. The standards can change (and they have) and from everything I've seen, they don't take a lot of variables into consideration. In BG, our own superintendent pointed out that the data being collected can be manipulated to make pretty much any argument the state wants to make about a district (http://bgindependentmedia.org/bg-schools-not-satisfied-with-state-report-card/). Which brings me to the politics point.

Do even a cursory Google search and you will find that the governor here in Ohio, John Kasich (yes, that John Kasich), is a big proponent of charter schools. Charter schools are basically a way to privatize K-12 education. That same Google search will also show you that the charter school system in Ohio is corrupt. Rather than summarize all of the problems myself, here is an excellent rundown of all of the problems: http://progressohio.org/an-incomplete-yet-totally-terrifying-ohio-charter-school-scandal-chronology/ . Charter schools divert state money from public districts. While Kasich and his minions in state government allow the charters to continue to collect state money, funding for K-12 districts from the state continues to be reduced. See here: http://innovationohio.org/2016/01/19/news-release-school-officials-fed-up-with-losing-local-dollars-to-charter-schools-call-for-a-funding-fix/. Public districts lose money to charters and are forced to go to their taxpayers for levies year after year (and in certain districts are forced to go up against the interests of diabolical slumlords who throw tons of money at defeating those levies). 

My kids are Bowling Green City Schools students. Looking at the recently-released school report card, one "grade" in particular caught my eye. It was the K-3 literacy grade, on which BGCS scored an F. The reason for the F was how well the district was doing in getting struggling students up to grade level in reading by the third grade. My girls are in first grade and kindergarten right now, smack in the heart of that timeframe. This F does not correlate at all with our experiences so far. My current kindergartener went into the school year struggling a little bit with reading. We're less than six weeks into the school year, and I am already seeing that she's making progress. Literacy is a major focus of both girls' days at school and their teachers give me the tools I need to help keep them on track. 

I wonder if that F comes from a couple of variables that the report cards don't take into consideration. Bowling Green has a large number of students living below the poverty line, like many other rural and small town districts around the state. If you're a parent who is struggling to provide for your family, perhaps working multiple jobs, perhaps under a great deal of stress, do you really have the time and energy to help your kid with her reading or homework? Do you have the money to hire someone to tutor or help your kid if you can't? The answer to both questions is not likely. My daughter's quick progress is probably partially based on the fact that I am tremendously privileged to work a regular schedule that allows me to do extra work with her on her reading. If I needed to, I could afford to get her extra help. Again, privilege. The fact that so many kids don't have this ability is an unavoidable situation that isn't the teacher's fault, or the district's fault, or even the parent's fault. And yet, the district is going to be labeled with an F grade for K-3 literacy. Why not provide the district with the resources it needs to help students whose parents aren't able to provide the kind of supplemental instruction needed?

To get even more political, I think it's a pretty safe bet that universal Pre-K would help tremendously with literacy in the early grades (a good look at the benefits of Pre-K can be found here: http://blog.ed.gov/2016/06/building-foundation-children-starts-pre-k/). In our district, there are lots of opportunities for Pre-K education, but only students with IEPs are guaranteed access to Pre-K for free. The district has an excellent and affordable preschool program (when my girls went through it, it was $6.50/per 2.5 hour day, snack provided), but a limited number of seats are available each school year and they fill up FAST. Outside of that program, there are many private options throughout the area, but they get very expensive (many are even outside of what my family can afford and we are a dual-income professional couple). Study after study proves that Pre-K gives students a tremendous advantage in school and in life, but in Ohio the state is much more focused on sinking money into failing charter schools that allow Kasich to maintain his tea party bonafides than into a universal Pre-K system that would actually benefit Ohio's students. 

As a parent who also happens to be an educator, I maintain a tremendous amount of confidence and pride in the public school district that is preparing my daughters for college and life. A flawed assessment is not indicative of what is actually happening in Ohio schools on a day-to-day basis. There are always things that districts need to improve, but I'd be much more convinced by teachers and district administrators about what those things are and what needs to be done to improve them than I would be by the kinds of assessment and data the state is offering. 

Favorite Recent Beers

When people find out that I'm a beer geek, I get lots of questions about what I like, what's good, and what they should drink. I'm always a little hesitant to answer the last question because I don't know people's personal tastes. Not everyone likes a mouthful of hops like I do. I usually just end up talking about my favorites and things I liked recently. It occurred to me recently that it might be fun to write those thoughts instead of sharing them with Dave, who could really care less (teetotaler, that one).

To contextualize my picks here, you might like to know my likes and dislikes. As previously mentioned, hops are my thing. I love piney, tropical fruity, citrusy, whatever. If it's hoppy, I'll like it. If it's so bitter that it turns your mouth inside out, chances are that I'll love it. I also love deep, rich stouts and porters, bonus points if they're barrel aged. I drink coffee beers while watching the Premier League on Saturday and Sunday mornings. I struggle with wheat beers. I thought I hated lagers and pilsners until I started drinking ones that aren't macrocrap. I'll try anything craft at least once.

So, below, you'll find a few of the beers I've been drinking recently that I've loved and why I loved them.

Note: I live in Ohio and I try to drink beers from Ohio breweries as much as possible. This means that if you aren't in the Buckeye State, you may not be able to easily obtain some of these. That just means that you'll have to come visit me and let me introduce you to the wonders of the Ohio craft brewing scene.

Land-Grant Stiff-Arm IPA
6.4% ABV, 54 IBUs (according to their website)
Consumed: On draft in a plastic cup, on draft in a shaker pint, and poured from a can into an IPA glass

Land-Grant Brewing Company is based in Columbus, OH and has been open for about a year now. I had my first opportunity to try their beer at a Columbus Crew SC match back in March of this year. Crew SC has a local craft beer stand in the stadium, which is awesome and which makes good money off of me every time I'm there (they also have Hot Chicken Takeover at MAPFRE Stadium...in other words their concessions are unparalleled in all of the world). Since I hadn't tried anything from Land-Grant to that point, I chose their Stiff-Arm IPA. It was delicious -- citrusy and a little bitter and way too easy to drink. I eagerly went back for seconds and couldn't resist it again when I went to another match in May. I did wonder, though, if my opinion was being enhanced by the fact that I was drinking it in a particularly happy state of mind, watching my beloved Crew SC and eating HCT. Turns out, that was not the case. Since then, I've had it on draft in a restaurant and poured from a can into a glass. It is uniformly great. If I lived in Columbus, this would be my go-to IPA, always in my fridge. Alas, I don't live in Columbus and Land-Grant doesn't distribute to Northwest Ohio.

Rhinegeist Truth
7.2% ABV, 75 IBUs (according to their website)
Consumed: Fresh from the brewery in a shaker pint and poured from a can into an IPA glass

Over this past summer, my husband and I took our kids on a tour of Ohio. Cincinnati, home of Rhinegeist Brewery, was one of our stops. The brewery's website declares that they happily welcome supervised children into their taproom, except after 8 PM on Fridays and Saturdays, so we had to check it out. Their space is AMAZING and they were wonderful and welcoming to my kids. If you're ever in Cincy and you love beer, you owe it to yourself to check out the brewery. This particular beer, Truth, is their standard IPA. It's so good and so balanced. I especially love IPAs that lean more toward the citrus than the pine (though I do like piney ones, too) and this is just that. Rhinegeist is another brewery that doesn't distribute to this part of the state, so I brought two six-packs home. I'm trying to balance savoring them with not wanting them to lose their awesomeness (IPAs don't age well due to their hoppiness). Fortunately, Rhinegeist does distribute to Columbus, so I can eventually replenish my stash.

Brewery Vivant Love Shadow
10% ABV (according to my last can of it since it no longer appears on their website)
Consumed: Fresh from the brewery in a mini tulip as part of a flight and poured from a can into a tulip

OMG Love Shadow. Can a beer be sexy? If so, this is the sexiest beer ever. I tried this one on a recent trip to Brewery Vivant in Grand Rapids, MI. Love Shadow is a bourbon barrel-aged imperial stout. It tastes like chocolate, vanilla, and bourbon (duh). It's boozy but velvety at the same time. I like it best after it's had a few minutes to warm up in the glass -- fridge cold dulls the richness and hides some of the complexity of the flavor. That 10% ABV is TRUTH, though. You'll have the warm fuzzies after just a few sips. This is a beer for sipping by a fireplace on a chilly evening. I feel epically stupid, though, because the $26.50 price point for four cans ($26.50!!! FOR FOUR CANS!!!) freaked me out and I only bought one of the two packs I was allowed to buy (it's a brewery exclusive and they had a 2 pack limit per customer). Like I said: stupid. This is one of the best beers I've ever had, period. I think I even like it better than that other unicorn of a Michigan-brewed bourbon barrel stout, Founders KBS (that is saying something, trust me). I only have one can left and that makes me sad.

So, those are three of my favorite recent beers. I realize that about 99% of the people who will read this will not have access to any of these beers. All three of these breweries are worth visiting though, even if it means traveling! More information:

Land-Grant Brewing
424 W. Town St.
Columbus, OH 43215

Rhinegeist
1910 Elm St.
Cincinnati, OH 45202

Brewery Vivant
925 Cherry St.
Grand Rapids, MI 49506

Tote Bags for Pelotonia!

My sister, Libby Cole, is a professional graphic designer who also designs tote bags that have been featured in the Chicago Tribune (as well as many other websites and blogs) and that are sold in boutiques in the United States and Canada. This year, to help out with my Pelotonia fundraising, she designed these amazing LIMITED EDITION bags for me!

Want one? I'm selling them for $30, 100% of which goes to my Pelotonia ride. You can donate directly to my ride, just be sure to let me know in your note to me that you want a bag and how you'd like me to get it to you...I'll even cover shipping within the US (if I know you IRL and I'll see you soon, I'm happy to hand deliver as well)!

To donate and get yourself one of these beauties, go to http://www.pelotonia.org/emilyanzicek. Better hurry, though; only 30 are available!

Creature Encounters on the Slippery Elm Trail

When I'm training for Pelotonia, I spend a lot of time zipping up and down the Slippery Elm Trail between Bowling Green and North Baltimore. I stick to the trail because drivers in this area are not educated on how to share the roads with cyclists, so riding through town is pretty terrifying. Fortunately, the trail is pretty well-maintained and the scenery is lovely. While you don't have to deal with motorized vehicles (all are prohibited), you do have to be prepared for animals, which can be as terrifying as an aggressive driver on a city street. Here are the weirdest, most interesting, and grossest creature encounters I've had on the trail (I see many bunnies every ride, but rabbits aren't that interesting).

The Dead Ones

These are the gross encounters. Mostly I see dead birds, which are nasty, but not too bad. I saw a dead mouse recently, but in my mind that's the best kind of mouse (sorry animal people...I HATE rodents). The worst dead one was a skunk. I actually shrieked when I saw it. This was just a day ago, so I really hope that the trail maintenance workers have removed it since we're supposed to have highs in the 90's the weekend.

The Deer

Deer on the trail terrify me. Thanks to the episode of Gilmore Girls in which a deer runs into Rory's car (yes, the deer runs into the car, not the other way around), I am constantly worried that a deer is going to run out of one of the wooded areas on the trail and send me flying off of my bike. Fortunately, so far, they've run across the trail far enough ahead for me to stop and avoid them. 

One very hot day last summer, I actually had a deer appear to race me down the trail. I was riding on a section of the trail that ran alongside a fallow farm field. I rode past a deer standing in the field and when it saw me, it took off running parallel to me until we reached some trees. The whole time, I chanted, "Please don't cross the trail. Please don't cross the trail." It didn't. It did beat me, though. Of course.

The Groundhogs

Groundhogs may be the most annoying creatures on the trail because they're dangerous for people on skinny-tired road bikes. The problem is that, for whatever reason, they like to make their burrows RIGHT next to the trail, and then tunnel under the concrete. This causes sinkholes on the trail (usually close to the sides, but I've seen a couple closer to the middle). While Wood County does a good job filling these sinkholes in quickly, there are frequently big, gaping holes that would obliterate a road bike at high speeds. The groundhogs themselves are also slow, which means I've had to dodge them a few times when they can't get off the trail fast enough.

The Peacocks

Or, more accurately, a peacock and a peahen. They were pretty but seemed pretty stupid.

The Wild Turkeys

Speaking of stupid. So, so stupid. Had to ride off the trail to get around them because they failed to recognize that a human on a bicycle going 15+ miles per hour and yelling, "MOVE!" might be a threat to their wellbeing. 

The Feral Cat Family

Last summer, a litter of feral kittens and their mother lived next to the trail, about a mile out from North Baltimore. I saw them several times and they would always hiss and arch their backs at me. One particular day, a bunch of the kittens were playing in the road that the trail crosses near their home. As I crossed the trail, I noticed a semi truck speeding down the road rapidly approaching the kittens. I yelled to try to scare them off, but they were unimpressed. I spent the next several minutes praying that I wouldn't see smashed kittens when I came back that direction on the way back to BG. Happily, I can report that they apparently escaped because I saw no evidence of a kitten vs. semi confrontation.

The Pack of Beagle Puppies

One morning last summer, I was chased down the trail by about five beagle puppies. I am not kidding. I strongly suspect that their owner was nearby and out of sight in the woods, more than likely training them to hunt (Don't train your dogs to hunt cyclists. That's mean). They were seriously cute with their distinctive beagle bark (that almost yelping ARF that they do), but kept trying to run in front of me, which would have been bad for everyone involved. They chased me for a good distance before they finally gave up. 

The Takeaway

Emily is a city girl.

A Fond Farewell to Lucky

If you aren't familiar, Lucky was "the magazine about shopping" that Conde Nast began publishing in  2000 (year confirmed by Wikipedia). This week, numerous media outlets have reported that Lucky is dead, after a reduction in issues, major staff layoffs, and a partnership with an outside company failed to save it. According to New York Magazine's fashion blog, The Cut, Lucky may live on as a website, but the print aspect of it is done.

I'm a feminist media critic. I'm supposed to find women's magazines problematic. And I do. But I also love them.

I have a long history with "ladymags," and especially fashion and beauty magazines. My entry into the category was Allure, the first issue (1991, so sayeth the Wiki) of which somehow ended up in our house. I was all of 11, but my mom subscribed and I read every issue when she finished it. I have subscribed (either through my mom or on my own) ever since. No kidding, 24 years. By around freshman year of high school, I was also getting Vogue. I have vivid memories of advertisements in both magazines for the pastel eyeshadows and nail polishes so popular in the early to mid '90's. I loved poring over the pictures of the couture fashions and reading about various random rich people attending parties and what they wore to those parties (Vogue, of course. I actually ended up canceling my subscription several years ago when I realized I was more annoyed by than interested in these ladies and their parties). I even wrote a research paper for my sophomore year science class about Botox using an article in Allure as a source (I was, and I remain, horrified by the idea of paralyzing one's facial muscles with botulinum toxin. It has the word toxin in its name!!!).

I remember hoping that one day I'd be able to afford the clothes and bags I saw in those pages. As soon as I had money, I started buying the more affordable luxury pictured in my magazines: the cosmetics (first non-drugstore makeup purchase: Clinique Chubby Stick -- the original silver pencil that had to be sharpened -- in Blue Jam, approximately 1996, and chosen based on an article I read in Allure). The clothes I saw remained elusive, though. It was difficult to even recreate the styles with the options available to a teenager in suburban Detroit working a minimum wage job.

Lucky was a game-changer for me. In 2000, I was a junior at DePaul University. I kept seeing advertisements in Allure (my subscription came with me to college) for a "new magazine about shopping." As soon as it appeared on newsstands, I bought a copy. I was instantly hooked. Here was a magazine that showed how to style clothes, but the clothes were at least in the realm of possibility for me. Instead of Chanel and Burberry, here was Gap and J. Crew and Banana Republic. Sometimes, they'd even feature stuff from Target and Old Navy, where an undergrad could actually afford to buy clothes. The focus was on looking good at every price point and the thrill of getting an amazing deal on something that made you look and feel great. Every item's price was printed right next to it on the page. They even included pages of "Lucky Breaks," exclusive discounts and giveaways on items featured in each issue (I won at least five of the giveaways over the course of my subscription). I subscribed immediately.

For its first several years, Lucky was my favorite magazine. Editor-in-Chief Kim France brought an accessible, interesting approach to style. I loved Jean Godfrey June's columns about beauty and bought many of her recommendations. If you ever liked an outfit I wore in undergrad or grad school, chances are at least one item or the idea for the outfit came from the pages of Lucky. The mix of high and low end styles was groundbreaking for a fashion magazine and it was perfect for someone who wanted to look good on a small budget.

For me, Lucky started to lose its appeal in 2010 when Brandon Holley (previously of Jane) took over as editor-in-chief. By that time, I had a real, grown-up job and had just had my first baby. I was financially stable enough to start building a wardrobe and affording the things I loved in Lucky's pages. Just as I got to that point, I started noticing a major shift in the items featured in the magazine. Instead of that famous high-low mix, more and more high fashion brands were taking over. The prices kept going up. I remember seeing a very plain white t-shirt featured that cost $70. There was less and less differentiation between what I was seeing in Lucky and what Vogue, InStyle, and Allure were pushing.

I held out until early 2013. By that point, the magazine was focusing heavily on "street style" stars (which seems to me to be young, wealthy people, who work in creative fields, mostly in New York, with unique style sense, who wear outfits that are meant to make them seem "interesting") and fashion bloggers. While I get why these people can be influential and important (talk about democratizing fashion) there is very little about the life of a rich twenty-something in Brooklyn that I can apply to my own life and style. I canceled my subscription. Shortly after that, Conde Nast announced that Holley was being replaced by Eva Chen, best known for her mastery of social media, particularly Instagram. Several months later, I bought one Chen-edited issue at the newsstand to see if I'd want to resubscribe. It didn't take me many pages to realize that I didn't. The only thing I found compelling enough to read in the entire issue was Jean Godfrey June's column.

The end of Lucky makes me sad because for a long time it was the only magazine that made fashion and style seem achievable for a young, middle class woman in the midwest. Part of its downfall may have been that other magazines started picking up their high-low approach, rather than focusing on high-end only. I can see Lucky's influence when I flip through a copy of InStyle and see items I can actually afford with their prices printed right on the page, instead of in tiny print at the back of the magazine. I think the bigger problem, though, was that they left their readers behind. The focus on street style significantly narrowed the concept of style in the magazine's pages and as a result reduced the appeal to a broad range of readers.

These days, my fashion magazines of choice are Allure (of course), InStyle, and Elle. They're good for what they are and I enjoy them, but I miss the old Lucky approach. A lot of what I used to see in Lucky is covered in numerous blogs and websites now, so there will almost certainly never be another print publication like Lucky pre-2010. And that's sad.

So, about that...

If you're Facebook friends with me, you may have seen a post I did criticizing an advertisement for a homebrewing contest that only featured images of white, cisgendered, men. You may also have noticed the negative reactions that the post got from some of my followers. You may have questioned why I bothered to respond to some comments that were at best shortsighted and at worst outright hostile and sexist. I'm normally the type to rise above the fray and minimize drama on social media (I just don't have time, energy, etc). I didn't do that this time, but I am unabashedly not sorry that I engaged. I thought some of my friends may be interested in hearing why I responded. I want to share my thoughts about this with you in this space.

Reason #1: I'm sick and tired. 

When I was younger, especially in high school, I internalized the idea that keeping my mouth shut, not putting myself on the line, and being as invisible as possible would protect me from being bothered by other people. I was the target of a lot of crap from my peers when I was a kid. Blending in to the background (which is a lot different than fitting in) was my primary defense mechanism. It continued to be my primary defense mechanism for a very long time. In college and grad school, I was at least encouraged to open up and express my thoughts and ideas and I frequently did in places and spaces that I knew were safe and supportive. 

I realized over the years that blending in wasn't working for me. It was making me anxious, angry, cynical, and distrustful. As a feminist, I felt like a hypocrite when I'd see discrimination and inequities in action, but couldn't bring myself to speak up or act against them. Keeping everyone around me happy was detrimental to my own happiness and wellbeing. I'm sick and tired of holding back and questioning the value of the contributions I make to the world. I strongly suspect that a lot of other women feel the same way.

Guess what? In that "controversial" Facebook post? I made a lot of really good points that I backed up with logic and reason and evidence. I have expertise and credibility in media criticism and analysis. I put myself on the line in a way that I could defend and justify. I stand by everything I wrote.

Of course, putting yourself on the line opens you up to a lot of criticism and negative attention, especially when you're a woman. Which brings me to...

Reason #2: Stereotypes and gendered microaggressions MUST be called out.

The people commenting on my post went to the well of gender stereotypes and microaggressions very quickly. The first was mansplaining. If you're not familiar, mansplaining is when a man tries to explain something to a woman, or prove her wrong on an issue, about which she has more knowledge, experience, or expertise. Amy Gray, in The Guardian, notes that this is done patronizingly and with the assumption of ignorance (http://preview.tinyurl.com/pyd4mf6). This frequently happens in discussions about gender and the experience of gender discrimination or inequity. While not coined by her, most people credit the development of the concept of mansplaining to Rebecca Solnit's essay "Men Explain Things to Me" (you can AND SHOULD read the whole essay and some of Solnit's additional thoughts about it here: http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175584/). Mansplaining is exhausting for women. It makes me feel like I should just stop talking because, "why bother?" And that right there is why it's such a problem. When that "why bother?" feeling overtakes the desire to stand up for myself, I am complicit in my own silencing. 

Among the many other problems with the responses to my arguments were attempts to frame my points as being anti-male and as "yelling and screaming" about my "personal tastes." These are classic examples of things men say to shut women up. Number one, I am a heterosexual woman who is married to a man. I have many respected and loved family members, friends, colleagues, and even mentors who are men. I am NOT anti-man. I do not think men are "ew" as one commenter accused. What I am is anti-sexism and anti-misogyny. By the very nature of sexism and misogyny, they are most often perpetrated by men against women.

As for the "yelling and screaming" thing...this is one of reactions to women's voices that makes me the angriest. Have you ever noticed that when a woman has a strong opinion and states it with authority and conviction, she's frequently labeled as "shrill" or "unpleasant" or even "bitchy"? Calm, reasoned arguments are framed as screaming and being hysterical or crazy. The examples in popular media are legion. There are so many excellent studies about this very issue written by scholars in communication. This came up very recently in a widely discussed study of class evaluations written by college students about their professors (see more here: http://preview.tinyurl.com/pl5ebtd). It happens and it happens ALL THE TIME. Women are frequently socialized to believe that they have to be nice, and that nice means coming across as friendly, approachable, and sweet. So, being labeled shrill or bitchy or any other synonym for those words is another technique for silencing women's voices. Men aren't generally talked about in negative terms when they're opinionated and outspoken. Instead, men are described as "good leaders," "powerful," "strong," and "smart." I cannot even begin to tell you how many times I've been called a bitch by men who want me to stop talking. Students, acquaintances, even a family member have hopped on board the bitch train. I cannot be shouted down by these reactions, because then I give that method of silencing credence. 

Which brings me to...

Reason #3: Celia and Eleanor.

My little daughters are a major part of why I won't be shouted down. I want to equip them with the knowledge that their voices, opinions, and ideas have value. That they matter. That they can change the world just by being themselves, to paraphrase the great and wise Amy Poehler. How can I accomplish those goals if I allow them to see me being silenced by ignorance and misogyny? They're extremely lucky to have a father who believes that they and their voices matter, but what about outside of our home? I believe that seeing me be powerful and hearing me use my voice to enact change will help them realize their own worth and power. They are far too important for me to act otherwise.

There is really so much more I could say. I could discuss why I'd go to the mat over beer (trust me, it matters). I could write about the psychological effects of being systematically silenced. I could write for days about sexism and misogyny in craft beer and brewing. For now, though, I'll leave it here, knowing that I'm probably going to have to deal with another day of people telling me I'm wrong, it's not really that bad, I'm making too much out of it, etc.